Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait".
Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait.
Fu-Ming: *crickets*

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

It's okay to ignore people you don't want to communicate with. It's no different than walking by a porno shop without having to go in it to watch XXX movies. I've been in many forums that are policed ( moderated ) heavily and they become very boring because the only one's left to debate each other are the one's who get everyone else in trouble and banned from the forum. Everyone gets fearful of these almighty forum members who love to go by the rules and exalt themselves over every other member.

There's nothing worse than being amongst a group of exalted individuals who think they're the only ones who have interesting things to say and anyone else who challenges them gets put in their place or banned. Some forums end up losing all their members who fear getting disciplined by the moderators or completely banned. The only members left are the moderators and the exalted group who continue to debate each other about the same exact topics over and over and over. it's incredible how some people can debate the same issues and never get tired of it.

I know you're concerned about one member in this forum but it's much better to ignore him or her than it is to have a forum that's heavily moderated.

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

I just ignore him. There is nothing I could tell him he hasn't heard dozens of times (at least). No sense in wasting time will willful ignorance.

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

I see it as his last thread (fiber, not topic), and he's dangling as it unravels. That thread is the only thing keeping him tied to theism which has been torn apart for him to the point that this is his last resort. What he doesn't understand is that if he'd just allow himself to listen to reason, he'd only find himself standing on reasonable grounds.

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

I see it as his last thread (fiber, not topic), and he's dangling as it unravels. That thread is the only thing keeping him tied to theism which has been torn apart for him to the point that this is his last resort. What he doesn't understand is that if he'd just allow himself to listen to reason, he'd only find himself standing on reasonable grounds.

I have many other reasons too.

The inherent order and intelligibility in nature, the origin of specified-complex information in DNA, the existence of transendental absolute truthsthat ground rationality and logic accordingly, the evidence that the Big Bang had a transcendent cause, the fact that an eternal and necessarily uncaused something must exist, and yes, the overwhelming evidence of objective morality (which you yourself believe in because according to you morality must "maximize social harmonization" but deny that that is objective.)

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Because everyone agrees that its BAD. What is not agreed on, which makes it subjective is HOW bad it is. What should the punishment be? It varies from society to society, so its subjective.

If such a morality flowed from a deity, we would have a punishment along with the edict. That was God's big thing in the OT, right? Do this X if Y, if Y falls under Z circumstances, then engage in (insert inane behavior here).

Why is it that humans can't be trusted to figure out what is wrong and right?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

I see it as his last thread (fiber, not topic), and he's dangling as it unravels. That thread is the only thing keeping him tied to theism which has been torn apart for him to the point that this is his last resort. What he doesn't understand is that if he'd just allow himself to listen to reason, he'd only find himself standing on reasonable grounds.

I have many other reasons too.

The inherent order and intelligibility in nature, the origin of specified-complex information in DNA

Once again; tell me everything you know about Chaos Theory.

the existence of transendental absolute truths

Which are only absolute in this universe, and because of this universe.

that ground rationality and logic accordingly, the evidence that the Big Bang had a transcendent cause,

This is no evidence for a transcendent cause for big-bang. You've been spouting that since I joined this forum. You've been refuted dozens of times, and you just keep coming back with the same failed argument.

the fact that an eternal and necessarily uncaused something must exist

Wrong again, and you've been shown that you are wrong on this; time, after time, after time.

and yes, the overwhelming evidence of objective morality

Which is also false and has also been refuted and demonstrated to be false, repeatedly.

(which you yourself believe in because according to you morality must "maximize social harmonization" but deny that that is objective.)

Because societies are not objective. Do you think moral codes for other animals include codes regarding baby rape? C'mon Ben, I can appreciate anyone having an idea and testing it. The problem is when you're idea fails and rather than accept that fact, you become so desperate that you start telling others that the believe what they have repeatedly demonstrate to be false. I don't believe morality is objective and I've waxed that silly idea ten ways from Sunday. Sometimes you even let it lie for a week or two. But then you always come back with the same stupid ideas that have been demonstrated to be false, over, and over, and over. Get a new argument.

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

It's okay to ignore people you don't want to communicate with. It's no different than walking by a porno shop without having to go in it to watch XXX movies. I've been in many forums that are policed ( moderated ) heavily and they become very boring because the only one's left to debate each other are the one's who get everyone else in trouble and banned from the forum. Everyone gets fearful of these almighty forum members who love to go by the rules and exalt themselves over every other member.

There's nothing worse than being amongst a group of exalted individuals who think they're the only ones who have interesting things to say and anyone else who challenges them gets put in their place or banned. Some forums end up losing all their members who fear getting disciplined by the moderators or completely banned. The only members left are the moderators and the exalted group who continue to debate each other about the same exact topics over and over and over. it's incredible how some people can debate the same issues and never get tired of it.

I know you're concerned about one member in this forum but it's much better to ignore him or her than it is to have a forum that's heavily moderated.

I have been ignoring him. It's still a pain to see him derail thread after thread with exactly the same stuff endlessly. Wouldn't it be nice if he could just get it out of his system, have a debate with someone on it, accept the verdict either way, and then just move on. I'll scream if I see another post inanely asking for "a society which tolerates baby rape for fun". It's driving me nuts!

Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait".
Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait.
Fu-Ming: *crickets*

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Oh for crying out loud. I answered that very question in the OP. I anticipated it.

You don't understand. I don't want you to keep repeating the question. It's time you stopped. For your sake as well as ours. The bloody topic has been done to death, stop flogging it.

Well apparently there is a misunderstanding. If you don't want to discuss it further I won't press the issue, but something objective just means indefinitely true. If it's indefinitely true that human beings apprehend that infant rape is wrong, this is an objective moral standard. It's moral sense theory.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun".

As opposed to the rape of babies for therapeutic reasons?

It's a farce, isn't it? The "for fun" is his escape clause, you know, just in case.

What's even more farcical is he professes to know the entire future history of humanity in his "indefinitely true" definition of the word objective. It could well be true that there will never be any such society (not for the reason he thinks) but how the hell could he possibly know?

Fu-Ming: "So explain to us how wasps look like wasps 100 million years later. I'll wait".
Me: What part of the theory of evolution states that a species must change? I'll wait.
Fu-Ming: *crickets*

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Oh for crying out loud. I answered that very question in the OP. I anticipated it.

You don't understand. I don't want you to keep repeating the question. It's time you stopped. For your sake as well as ours. The bloody topic has been done to death, stop flogging it.

Well apparently there is a misunderstanding. If you don't want to discuss it further I won't press the issue, but something objective just means indefinitely true. If it's indefinitely true that human beings apprehend that infant rape is wrong, this is an objective moral standard. It's moral sense theory.

Since everything was planned, created and formed by our invisible Creator, then baby rape is what He made available for some rapists to participate in. It makes no difference to God whether or not you agree with it. He only made it to confuse His people during this first age. He won't have any baby rape in the new Heaven and Earth so there's nothing to worry about.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun".

As opposed to the rape of babies for therapeutic reasons?

It's a farce, isn't it? The "for fun" is his escape clause, you know, just in case.

What's even more farcical is he professes to know the entire future history of humanity in his "indefinitely true" definition of the word objective. It could well be true that there will never be any such society (not for the reason he thinks) but how the hell could he possibly know?

Feel free to provide examples of infant rape that was acceptable by any society for *any* reason. Also, it's laughable how inane it is to suppose that infant rape could be acceptable in the future.

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Here ya go. Your sick wish fulfilled. This documentary is called The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. It's about the cultural tradition and common place practice of pedophilia in Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com... But as always your counter argument is, it's still considered wrong! But that's besides the point, the point is that this large swath of people do not consider it to be wrong and turn a blind eye to it. And if you say that these Afgan boys do not qualify as infants, therefore your universal law against infant rape stands, consider pedophiles don't rape infants not out of a universal morality or sense of justice, but perhaps raping toddlers and young teens is more pleasurable.

What is your obsession with infant rape anyways? Why not ask for a society that tolerates simple infanticide? You'd have to look no further than the US as fundamentalists would argue.

You've been shown that the humans of this world can be very sick and there is no universal unbreakable cultural law that binds us all or prevents such acts. Why you wish to pretend this doesn't happen for the sake of your argument, while understandable, is no excuse for your continued ignorance.

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Here ya go. Your sick wish fulfilled. This documentary is called The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. It's about the cultural tradition and common place practice of pedophilia in Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com... But as always your counter argument is, it's still considered wrong! But that's besides the point, the point is that this large swath of people do not consider it to be wrong and turn a blind eye to it. And if you say that these Afgan boys do not qualify as infants, therefore your universal law against infant rape stands, consider pedophiles don't rape infants not out of a universal morality or sense of justice, but perhaps raping toddlers and young teens is more pleasurable.

What is your obsession with infant rape anyways? Why not ask for a society that tolerates simple infanticide? You'd have to look no further than the US as fundamentalists would argue.

You've been shown that the humans of this world can be very sick and there is no universal unbreakable cultural law that binds us all or prevents such acts. Why you wish to pretend this doesn't happen for the sake of your argument, while understandable, is no excuse for your continued ignorance.

At 11/17/2014 12:39:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:I wonder who this could possibly be?

I don't ask for much. All I've ever asked for was a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why is this evidently a subjective moral standard. That's it.

Here ya go. Your sick wish fulfilled. This documentary is called The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. It's about the cultural tradition and common place practice of pedophilia in Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com... But as always your counter argument is, it's still considered wrong! But that's besides the point, the point is that this large swath of people do not consider it to be wrong and turn a blind eye to it. And if you say that these Afgan boys do not qualify as infants, therefore your universal law against infant rape stands, consider pedophiles don't rape infants not out of a universal morality or sense of justice, but perhaps raping toddlers and young teens is more pleasurable.

What is your obsession with infant rape anyways? Why not ask for a society that tolerates simple infanticide? You'd have to look no further than the US as fundamentalists would argue.

You've been shown that the humans of this world can be very sick and there is no universal unbreakable cultural law that binds us all or prevents such acts. Why you wish to pretend this doesn't happen for the sake of your argument, while understandable, is no excuse for your continued ignorance.

Illegal under afghan law. Good try though.

How does that law matter in morality? Many things that are illegal are not immoral (drug use for example) and some things that are illegal are morally good (feeding the homeless https://www.youtube.com...). If it's illegal then why men allowed to do it without legal reproach? And what about in ancient Greek and roman culture where there was no law against the same tradition as these Afgan men?

"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks

At 11/16/2014 8:38:56 PM, dee-em wrote:Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am of a certain unnamed poster derailing almost every single thread he enters to tell us how meaningless the life of an atheist must be if they don't accept objective morality 'flowing' from an alleged god? I mean, he's just obsessed. And he never learns from any of the dozens of other times he has steered discussions to his obsession. No, he just repeats the same stale 'arguments' over and over even though they have been refuted a thousand times.

His favourite "proof' of objective morality is "no society has ever condoned the rape of babies for fun". He raises it at every opportunity. (A psychiatrist might have a field day with such a deep-seated fixation). Societies are collections of human beings. He fails to appreciate the irony of his appeal to the behaviour of human societies for his objective morality. And notice the weasel words "for fun". No human society has ever condoned throwing good food away for fun. Is this also evidence for objective morality?

I see it as his last thread (fiber, not topic), and he's dangling as it unravels. That thread is the only thing keeping him tied to theism which has been torn apart for him to the point that this is his last resort. What he doesn't understand is that if he'd just allow himself to listen to reason, he'd only find himself standing on reasonable grounds.

I have many other reasons too.

The inherent order and intelligibility in nature, the origin of specified-complex information in DNA

Once again; tell me everything you know about Chaos Theory.

Is chaos theory responsible for the precise and finely tuned constants in the universe? I don't see how chaos theory has anything to do with the inherent order and intelligibility of nature. Chaos theory uses advanced mathematics to understand the chaotic dynamics of a system.

How did specified-complex information originate in DNA? The only other information besides DNA that is specified and complex is the information that intelligent beings create.

the existence of transendental absolute truths

Which are only absolute in this universe, and because of this universe.

And do we have any evidence of other universes that may or may not exist? That's not even the main point. The point is that absolute truth exists as a transcendent aspect of the physical universe, only pertains to consciousness, and exists independently of whatever people think of it.

that ground rationality and logic accordingly, the evidence that the Big Bang had a transcendent cause,

This is no evidence for a transcendent cause for big-bang. You've been spouting that since I joined this forum. You've been refuted dozens of times, and you just keep coming back with the same failed argument.

The evidence is that all space-time and energy expanded from a zero-point singularity of infinite density. Let me know why pre-existing physical phenomena that condensed itself into infinite density before expanding is more likely the case to have caused the Big Bang rather than a transcendent cause. If you don't have any evidence or reason to believe that's what occurred, it's just a less rational hypothesis.

the fact that an eternal and necessarily uncaused something must exist

Wrong again, and you've been shown that you are wrong on this; time, after time, after time.

You yourself believe this. Don't you believe that energy is eternal?

and yes, the overwhelming evidence of objective morality

Which is also false and has also been refuted and demonstrated to be false, repeatedly.

Not the case. Here's where we left the argument. I asked for anybody to show me a society that tolerated infant rape and if not, why this is evidently a subjective moral standard. Nobody has. You replied with saying that this *objective* moral standard can't be true if it isn't also true for other species and it clearly wouldnt be. I replied with saying that objective morality is an innate awareness that certain behaviors are right and wrong indefinitely and that this awareness is ingrained in the human consciousness. It *only* pertains to a human sense of right wrong so what other species think is irrelevant. This does nothing to rebut the objectivity of objective morality.

(which you yourself believe in because according to you morality must "maximize social harmonization" but deny that that is objective.)

Because societies are not objective. Do you think moral codes for other animals include codes regarding baby rape? C'mon Ben, I can appreciate anyone having an idea and testing it. The problem is when you're idea fails and rather than accept that fact, you become so desperate that you start telling others that the believe what they have repeatedly demonstrate to be false. I don't believe morality is objective and I've waxed that silly idea ten ways from Sunday. Sometimes you even let it lie for a week or two. But then you always come back with the same stupid ideas that have been demonstrated to be false, over, and over, and over. Get a new argument.

No, you said that whatever is moral in any society must maximize social harmonization. Correct?

The argument is simply undefeated as it currently stands. I told you where we left off. It's your move. If you can't move, continue to declare the argument defeated and dissipate back into the shadows.